Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Tulsa

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 606 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA,
EMPLOYER and TULSA GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP-
ERS, LOCAL UNION No. 523, OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-RC-388.-Decided August 9, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Joseph A.
Butler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upoii the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer :
The Employer is a Delaware corporation licensed to do business
in Oklahoma. It is engaged in the processing and distributing of
carbonated beverages in a restricted territory under its franchise with
the Coca-Cola Company of 1903, Atlanta, Georgia. In 1948 the Em-
ployer purchased raw materials valued at approximately $295,856,
of which approximately 90 percent was received from points outside
the State of Oklahoma. In addition to these purchases, the Employer
also purchased from out of the State refrigeration units amounting
in -value to approximately $50,000. These it resells to dealers inside
the State at a 20-percent mark-up. During the same period, the
Employer's sales from bottled Coca-Cola amounted to $773,493, and
all were made within the State.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act."
'Matter of Rockford Coca - Cola Bottling Co., 81 N. L. R. B. 579; Matter of Raleigh
Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 80 N . L. R. B. 768; Matter of Coca-Cola Bottling Company of
Arkansas , 74 N. L. R . B. 1098.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 111.
606
COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA 607
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all plant production em-
ployees and all salesmen-drivers, excluding promotion men, adver-
tising employees, maintenance men, sign and display men, painters,
clerical employees, guards, professional employees, executive em-
ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer's
position is indefinite; it agrees as to the general scope of the unit, but is
uncertain as to the exclusions.
There are approximately 45 employees in the proposed unit, of
whom 19 are engaged in production in the plant and 26 are salesmen-
drivers. Some question exists as to the inclusion or exclusion from
the proposed unit of the advertising personnel and the maintenance
men. Under the heading of advertising personnel are grouped the
promotion men, sign and display men, and painters. There are 5 em-
ployees classified as advertising personnel. There are no promotion
men employed at the present time. The employees doing this adver-
tising work are not given an exact classification but apparently do
all the work on signs and displays and painting of any kind. These
employees work about the plant where they paint cases used in bottling,
the walls of the plant, and various pieces of equipment. The painting
.of the container cases is regarded as production department work.
The unit proposed by the Petitioner is a unit of salesmen and pro-
duction workers. The advertising personnel perform services that
appear to be an intimate part of the production process. They are
.under the same supervision as the other production employees. No
reason appears for their exclusion. Inasmuch as their interests are
closely allied with those of other employees engaged in production
work, we shall include them in the unit.
The Employer employs 3 men in truck maintenance and 4 in re-
frigeration cooler maintenance. The 3 garagemen keep in running
order a fleet of 35 trucks, including those operated by the driver-sales-
men. The refrigeration cooler maintenance men service the refrig-
erator units. There is nothing in the record to indicate any substan-
tial difference in their interests or working conditions and those of
the production employees, and the Petitioner offered no reasons for
their exclusion. Therefore, in accordance with our usual policy and
in recognition of the normal community of interest between produc-
608 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion and maintenance workers, we shall include the maintenance
employees in the unit.2
A question is raised as to whether or not one Mitchell should be
included in the unit . This employee is regularly a part of the plant
production group, but acts as a "straw boss" during the absences of the
production manager who has been ill for some time . The production.
manager works "two or three days and [is] out a few days." How-
ever, the Employer 's president stated that the production manager
"still gives instructions and Mitchell carries out his instructions." It
is clear that Mitchell exercises no independent judgment but merely
follows routine instructions ; he cannot effectively recommend a change
in status of an employee, though his recommendation would be
"listened to." We find that Mitchell is not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act and shall , therefore , include him in the unit.3
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 ( b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees and all salesmen-driv-
ers at the Employer 's Tulsa, Oklaholna , plant, including advertising
personnel , but excluding clerical employees , guards, professional
employees, executive employees , and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
2 Matter of McKamie Gas Cleaning Company , 80 N. L. It. B. 1447; Matter of Cardinal
Products, Inc., 80 N . L. It. B. 113.
3 Cf. Matter of Electrical Equipment Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 1060.
4 we shall permit the two part-time employees to vote in the election we shall direct
in this unit . These employees are students who regularly work at least 5 days a week,
several hours each day. From the record , it is clear that these employees have a sufficient
interest in the conditions of employment to warrant their inclusion among the voters.
Matter of American Lawn Mower Company , 79 N. L. It. B. 367.'
COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA 609
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by Tulsa General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
Union No. 523, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL.